What are the Abraham Accords, and why is Trump linking them with a potential Iran deal?

Pakistan, which has been mediating the US-Iran talks, rejected the proposal, with Defence Minister Khawaja Asif saying that joining the accords would clash with the country’s “fundamental ideologies”, including recognition of an independent and sovereign Palestine.

Trump’s proposition has revived the debate around the Abraham Accords at a time when the region is destabilised by Israel’s war on Gaza, tensions with Iran, and growing anger across the Arab world over Israeli military actions in Palestine, Lebanon and Syria. We explain.

What are the Abraham Accords?

The accords are essentially a series of peace agreements to normalise relations between Israel and Muslim-majority nations, stemming from the fact that upon the establishment of Israel in 1948, Arab states refused to accord diplomatic recognition to it.

Named after the biblical figure of Abraham, the patriarch in Islam, Christianity and Judaism, the agreements were presented by the US as a framework for peace, regional stability and economic cooperation between Israel and the Arab states.

Introduced during Trump’s first term in 2020, the accords were framed as a negotiated resolution to the Palestinian issue; in practice, they have largely bypassed the question of Palestinian statehood altogether.

Three countries which had long opposed relations with Israel (the UAE, Bahrain and Morocco) normalised relations with it by signing the accords. The second Trump administration reportedly sought to include Syria, Lebanon — under attack from Israel since March 2026 — and Saudi Arabia, while Somaliland and Kazakhstan have since joined the accords.

President Donald Trump and Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman of Saudi Arabia walk along the presidential portraits on the White House Colonnade in Washington, in Nov. 2025. (NYT)

Despite being a US ally, Saudi Arabia has not signed the accords, maintaining that Israel must end its war on Gaza and assent to a two-state solution with an “irreversible, credible, and time-bound path” to an independent Palestinian state.

Why is Trump linking the end of the war with the Accords?

Faced with yet another conflict – this time of his own making – without an end-date in sight, the US President has sought to fall back on the Accords, one of his defining foreign policy successes of his first term. If this effort proves successful, it would bolster his image as dealmaker-in-chief and help him project control over a situation he increasingly seems unable to contain.

Contrast this with his unsuccessful attempts in his second term to negotiate an end to Israel’s continued war on Gaza and Russia’s war with Ukraine. The escalating stakes of the war initiated by the US and Israel with Iran, its wider fallout on the West Asian theatre and cascading global repercussions are increasingly becoming a political and economic liability for the administration.

Trump also seeks to correct the domestic perception of the war. A poll by the Pew Center on May 1 reported that 62% of Americans surveyed disapprove of Trump’s handling of the military action against Iran. These numbers have held steady since March, when 61% of respondents polled similarly. Regarding the success of US military action, 51% of respondents said it is not going well, an increase from 45% in April.

Rising oil and gas prices resulting from the effective closure of the Strait of Hormuz, as well as concerns about inflation and broader economic anxiety, have begun to fuel public dissatisfaction with the administration. The Gallup Economic Confidence Index fell to -45 in May, down from -38 in April and its lowest level since October 2022, reflecting growing pessimism about the economy as fuel prices climbed during the conflict with Iran. Parts of Trump’s key voter base, including younger Republicans and MAGA anti-interventionists, have also expressed discomfort about the prospect of another prolonged US war in West Asia.

Taken together, these outcomes have lowered the Republican Party’s popularity ahead of the midterms in November, a fact that has senior GOP leaders concerned. Some Republican lawmakers and conservative commentators have also expressed unease about the prospect of a prolonged conflict with Iran, reflecting broader divisions within Trump’s political base over deeper US involvement in West Asia. However, Trump was dismissive and told reporters on May 27 that he was not concerned about the upcoming election, and that Iranian leaders had miscalculated if they thought ‌the November midterm elections would force him into a deal.

What does expanding the Accords mean for the region?

Effectively, the Accords were intended to create a US-backed regional bloc that integrated Israel more deeply into West Asia through economic, diplomatic and security ties. The participation of the UAE, Bahrain and Morocco has helped legitimise Israel’s presence in parts of the Arab world without resolving the Palestinian question.

For Washington, expanding the accords would further consolidate a regional alignment built around US allies and countering Iranian influence. Bringing countries such as Saudi Arabia, Qatar or Turkey into the framework would mark a major diplomatic victory for both the US and Israel, especially with Israel facing growing international criticism over Gaza and its military actions across the region.

Omair Anas, professor of International Relations at Ankara Yildirim Beyazit University in Türkiye, told The Indian Express the ceasefire discussions have reached a “serious stage”, with major issues already agreed upon by both sides. However, he noted that Israel views the emerging deal as problematic because it could end the conflict without significant progress on its core demands.

“The only demand that Israel may wish to bring back is the Gulf countries’ joining of the Abraham Accords. However, no country has agreed to link the issue to the Iran ceasefire,” Anas said.

The debate over expanding the accords has, therefore, become closely tied to Saudi Arabia’s calculations, given Riyadh’s central role in any future regional realignment. “If the Trump administration insists, it would need to put more pressure on Israel to accept Saudi Arabia’s demands to start an irreversible process towards creating an independent Palestinian state,” Anas said.

He added that Saudi Arabia has repeatedly told Washington that the Abraham Accords are tied to its national security concerns and cannot move forward without credible guarantees on Palestinian statehood. According to Anas, Riyadh is also likely to coordinate closely with Egypt and Pakistan on the issue to avoid a direct confrontation with the Trump administration.

The political conditions that enabled the accords in 2020 have changed significantly. Israel’s war on Gaza and attacks in Lebanon and Syria have intensified public anger across much of the Arab and Muslim world, making overt normalisation politically harder for several governments.